Laserfiche WebLink
M+ay 18 04 09:09p p. 16 <br /> S � <br /> 0.: <br /> "(A]djaeent lots in common ownership will normally be treated as a single lot for <br /> zoning purposes so as to minimize noncon form i ties .. .." Seltzer v Board of Appeals of Orleans, 24 <br /> Mass. App. Ct. 521, 522 (1987). Before availing himself of a nonconfoming exemption, the <br /> r <br /> landowner must"include(]his adjacent land in order to minimum the noneonfonmity.. . . . Asack . <br /> Board of Appeals of Westwood, 47 Mass. App. Ct. 733, 736 (1999). See also Preston v. Board of <br /> Appeals of Hull,51 Mass. App.Ct.236,238(2001)(recognizing general rule of merger consistently <br /> applied before and after the enactment of St. 1975,c. 808). . <br /> If locus cannot be developed due to inadequate lot size and frontage,Ellis Contends that <br /> the residences on lots 29 and 31 were thus constructed illegally. While that question is not before this <br /> court, it is quite likely the statute of limitations contained in G. L, c. 40A, § 7, for land developed in <br /> accordance with a duly issued building permit.would have long nm. <br /> t <br /> In accordance with the foregoing, this court Finds that the. Land Space Requirements <br /> i <br /> Table found in§ 174-31 of the Mashpee Code governs the development of locus. As such,locus fails <br /> to meet the minimum size_requirement of 80,000 square feet and contains less-than the requisite 150 <br /> feet measured forty feet from Deerfield Road between side lot lines,15 <br /> EU <br /> Based upon the forgoing,judgment shall also enter i favor of plain 'ffs on Count 11 <br /> of the amended complaint. <br /> t <br /> LeJ. L. mbardi <br /> Justice <br /> Dated: December 29,2004 <br /> 157fhe common boundary with lot 40 measures 145 feet and constitutes to widest part of <br /> locus. <br /> l5 <br />